​It has become clear that many people are struggling in understanding “6(1)a All the Way”. By “people” I mean members of parliament, senators, community people, settler Canadians, and journalists. Knowledge is foremost a relationship and so you may have to read this a few times to move the awareness, to understanding, to knowledge, to wisdom. Knowledge moves through four levels.

The first thing learners need to know is that it was in 1985 when Parliament passed Bill C-31 to bring the Indian Act in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It failed. It was at this time when the second generation cut off rule was invented. Read on ….

The second generation cut off rule is a process where after two generations of having children with non-status people second generation descendants are not entitled to be registered status Indians. It is a process where a family lineage is first, bumped down a level to 6(2) status and second, bumped out to being non-status. The problem is the way this rule is applied differently to the descendants of men and the descendants of women who were once enfranchised and now re-instated in 1985. Read on ….

In 1985 Indian men, their wives and descendants, born before 1985, were all registered as 6(1)a Indians; while re-instated Indigenous women were registered as 6(1)c Indians. Here lies the issue: There is a difference between 6(1)a and 6(1)c categories in that while the second generation cut off rule is applied to men and their descendants after 1985, it is applied backwards or retroactively to Indian women and their descendants to births before 1985.

This flow chart may help with understanding the difference in the way the second generation cut off rule is applied in a way that is sex discrimination:

The “6(1)a All the Way” amendment that many women, and our allies, are calling for is not intended to address the second generation cut off rule post 1985. Rather, it is intended to address the way it is applied faster (or backwards) to Indian women re-instated in 1985 and their descendants. Another way to say this is we are calling for 6(1)a to be applied all the way to ALL reinstated women and their descendants in a way that is equal to Indian men and their descendants. It is that simple, yet that hard to understand.

Help me and take the time to establish a relationship with this knowledge.

Please like and share this blog.

​​​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. She recently won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Her bookThe Truth that Wampum Tells: My Debwewin of the Algonquin Land Claims Process offers an insider-Indigenous analysis of the Algonquin land claims process in Ontario. She has is new book titled Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit with the University of Regina Press scheduled to be published in the fall of 2017. You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

Can the governor general refuse to assent a bill?
giving Royal Assent (approval) to a bill passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Governor-General may recommend changes to a bill; however, no Governor-General has ever refused to give Royal Assent. starting the process for a federal election .... very curious too see if Julie payette will end discrimination for women in the indian act. And sign off on royal assent to pass 6 (1)(A) all the way...

Thank you Lynn for the clear explanation and for encouraging all of us to spend the time to build awareness understanding knowledge and wisdom.

Reply

Patricia Raymond

11/8/2017 02:11:10 pm

Unfortunately our band is section 10 and they pick and choose whom they wish to be members. Using bill c 31 as initial excuse until the chief realized his daughter and grandchildren were bill c31 so made them members but 101 of us are still denied membership to Peters Band even though they received monies annually to provide services for us we are denied any support:(. The federal government continues to deny any request for review and change. Most of us are asking our family for our identity. APTN has tried to bring out our situation and again INAC refuses to acknowledge our claims. As well, no support from AFN or BC Union of Chiefs. Currently there are 3court cases against our cousins who are Chief and council. This is a huge expense being carried by a few of the family. Still no resolution but the lawyers have been paid well over 50,000.00 so far! Who benefits? Not our people:(.

Reply

Daniel Paddigow Smith

11/10/2017 02:23:47 pm

A reminder; grandchildren raised by grandparents with no legal papers,
grandfather enfranchised 1937 when Indigenous women had no rights. my biological mother was 16, (daughter of grandparents), I went to INAC to enquire of mother status and was told she is not registered as an Indian but was recognized by INAC as a "Non-Indian" I am going back to INAC to have my 6.2 status amended to a 6.1and expect INAC to deny any amendment to my status. I sincerely believe Custom adoption is applicable to my situation. Biological mother died when brother and I were 5 and 7. And Ms. Raymond's comments hold true and it is quite possible INAC wants to consult with Fns in Canada to cause mischief among Fns pitting family against family. Thank you for sharing.

Reply

Michael Okros

11/11/2017 05:44:18 pm

Spreading awareness for equality, not for half equality

Reply

Dave Rushton

11/12/2017 06:29:43 pm

Thank you. Very informative. I will be appealing to the PM and his colleague Ministers with responsibilities relevant to this, and to my MP, to fix this discrimination against First Nations women.